Writers Take on AI in Hollywood  Pen vs. Code

On May 2, 2023, the Writers Guild of America (WGA) went on strike after negotiations with the major Hollywood studios failed. One of the central issues was the studios’ ability to use AI. At the outset, it seemed like a formless debate with no clear precedent. Even those on the picket line were doubtful the strike would yield any meaningful gains with AI. But screenwriters are experts at forming a narrative.

The WGA leadership framed their rhetoric around a classic Hollywood tale: Man versus Machine (The Matrix, The Terminator). And after 148 days of picketing at studio gates in Los Angeles and New York, humanity won. The resulting three-year contract not only put substantial restrictions on a studio’s ability to use AI, but it also opened the door to writers being able to use AI as a creative tool. The WGA had incredibly competent leadership with focused and disciplined messaging. Through each stage of the strike, co-chair of the negotiating committee Chris Keyser posted impassioned speeches on YouTube reminding the membership what they were fighting for and why it was important. As righteous as the WGA’s cause was, it lived or died on their ability to paint a narrative.

Ripping form and style from authors

The reality that an estimated 30% of labor hours in the U.S. will become automated by 2030 begs the question: Which jobs are worth fighting for? Artists may not be considered the most essential workers, but it’s a profession that is already under attack. Recently, a group of novelists including John Grisham, George R. R. Martin, and Michael Chabon filed a series of lawsuits against OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, for “systematic theft on a mass scale” by training their language models using copyrighted material. Professor of Philosophy Darren Hudson Hick, who has written books on the philosophy of copyright, describes these suits as “death throes.”: “AI language models are particularly insidious — not only because their methods don’t lend themselves easily to legal recourse but also because they can be prompted to replicate an identifiable author’s style. This is intuitively more invasive and personal than merely copying their work word-for-word.” Currently, there is a land rush where opportunistic so-called “authors” are flooding Amazon with “books” created using AI, ripping form and style from authors who spent decades honing their craft. Some artists tout that AI works are inherently derivative and thus inferior. But anyone who has listened to a Prince record knows that combining genres can advance a medium.

So, is all hope lost?

Are artists doomed to be left in the dust by AI that grows more powerful each day? Fortunately, when it comes to humans experiencing art, context matters. The most elegant account of this comes from the German philosopher Wilhelm Hegel. He believed that the beauty of art surpasses the beauty of nature because it relies on the exclusively human experience of self-realization and understanding one’s place in the world. In other words, nature deals with the material, whereas human art deals in the universal. As shallow as some may find the tastes of the average art consumer, humans are always keen to connect to a creator’s humanity.

Imagine you’re in a museum. At the entrance to a gallery, a sign reads, “All of the pieces were created by AI.” You marvel at the genre-bending and -blending. The complexity is awe-inspiring, and you remark to your friend how impressive AI is. Then, you go to the next gallery, where a similar sign says, “All the pieces in this gallery were ALSO created by AI.” At this point, AI’s abilities quickly become a novelty, distinct from fine art made by humans. On the commercial end of the artistic spectrum, a Marvel superhero movie is a corporate product, chiseled by user data and focus groups to maximize audience experience. But the names in the end credits still matter. The fact that there are real human actors matters. After all, when a movie sucks, it’s infinitely more satisfying to criticize human creators than an algorithm.

Does this mean humans always need transparency?

Not necessarily. Any adept political strategist knows that people are primarily social creatures rather than truth seekers. A candidate with an unblemished record will always lose to one who can tell a story. This is also true of capitalism. Visit any product page on Amazon, and there’s a story that shows why you need that item  — as well as how it aligns with who you are. But how do you trust that a coffee bean is actually organic, fair trade? Here is where corporations outpace any sort of regulatory forces, and a consumer’s desire for essential context fades away. When you walk into a Taco Bell, you don’t ask for the chef’s name. Meanwhile, TikTok, with its hauntingly capable algorithms, offers users a dopamine hit potent enough to forget about their problems but mild enough not to care where the content is coming from. So, how do creatives looking to make a living compete with these corporate machines? By utilizing any means at their disposal — whether it be legislation, unionization, or social media campaigns. Anyone whose profession is on the AI chopping block is tasked with telling a story that proves that, within the utopian world that AI evangelists promise, their profession is distinctly human.

By any metric, the WGA was successful in scaffolding their story, garnering widespread media coverage and support from sister unions such as SAG, IATSE, and the Teamsters, whose solidarity was essential to the negotiations. But the truest symbol of victory came with a New York Times profile of David Zaslav, the penny-pinching CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery, who became the formidable villain in the WGA’s narrative. “They are right about almost everything,” Zaslav admitted. “So, what if we overpay? I’ve never regretted overpaying for great talent or a great asset.” Some might read this as a backhanded jab from a CEO with a staggering salary of $246 million (in 2021). But the more poignant truth is that Zaslav is signaling that his customers demand a product that’s reliant on human talent. Will this narrative endure on its own steam? Highly doubtful. But these are the victories to seek out and fight for.